Fascism 101

President Trump recently tweeted this in regard to the four freshmen Congresswomen who oppose his policies: 

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

And added this today:

“If you’re not happy, you can leave.”

These statements are fascistic in nature and seek to do two things: 

1. Create division in this country so that Trump can align himself with the more powerful side. 

If everyone got along, we would have no need to hire a strong man to enact our wishes on those who disagree with us. Trump wants sides and he will claim the more violent, outspoken, loyal, consistently voting, and ruthless one.

“You’re with the police or against us.”

“But there is clear video evidence of racist motivations driving police officers to murder minorities recently and while obviously, the majority of cops are not racist, we should probably examine this and try to improve…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You support the troops or you are against us.”

“But I want to raise awareness about an issue so I consulted with U.S. Veterans about how to properly honor the flag and our country while still protesting the deficiencies we might still need to address…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You’re a capitalist or a communist.”

“But we already have a dozen socialist programs in this country like (ironically) the police, the military, fire, infrastructure, public schools, parks, etc., and while the free market is an incredible mechanism that should drive MOST industries, maybe we should consider taking healthcare out of the private sector because Insurance Companies prioritize wealth over health.”

“NOPE! You’re a communist.”

“You’re a Christian or the Devil.”

“But I’m Jewish/Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/etc.”

“NOPE! You’re the Devil.”

“You’re either American, or you don’t support me.”

“But I don’t support you.”

“NOPE! Then you’re not American, go back to where you came from!”

When you tell someone, “go back to where you came from,” what does that even mean!? My ancestors came to the United States mostly from England and Belgium and I don’t know how I would even begin to “go back” to those countries. This is an impossible statement and obviously racist since Trump has never said it to any White American.

2.  Destroy Any Criticism or Descent. 

The other horrific quote about leaving if you are not happy is the idea that you essentially cannot criticize the United States or the President. “If you don’t like it, you can leave (or die). We’re never changing, no matter how corrupt, cancerous, or callous we have become.”

This is indicative of narcissists who tend to do major damage to those around them and get furious when their behavior is criticized. I’ve come up with my own personal definition that I think states the condition clearly:

“A narcissist is someone who punches you in the face repeatedly and when you ask them to stop, they say, ‘don’t tell me what to do!’”

Trump is obviously a narcissist, but most of his supporters are narcissists as well. They have no regard for others, only their collective identity which they believe is the “real” America. The President thinks he and his minority bloc of supporters own the country.

What Trump does not realize is that when he says, “If you don’t like it here, you can leave,” what he is really saying is, “If you don’t like it here, vote for my opponent in the 2020 election.”

Because that’s how a Democracy like America works best: We fight each other on the ballot, not the battlefield.

This article was originally published on 15 July 2019.

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference 

[2017 In Review] Kaepernick Vs. The NFL… The LCR Responds…

Kaepernick certainly made his mark in 2017, and whether you agree with his position or not, he sparked a national conversation that everyone was forced to address. While the protests might be dying down, NFL viewership took a huge hit and even the President surprisingly jumped into the conversation.

Many people thought Kaepernick and other players were disrespecting the military despite Kaepernick saying his peaceful protest had nothing to do with the military. Many people chose to focus on the actual protests instead of WHY they chose to protest in the first place, which was police brutality and social injustice. How convenient and comfortable to focus on the former and not the latter?  

Different perspectives matter. We asked 5 of our contributors with different political views to weigh in on the Colin Kaepernick situation during the height of the protests earlier this year, and this is what they had to say…

“As someone who has worked in sports, I have tried to understand Colin Kaepernick’s dilemma in light of some athletes with less than perfect pasts. Michael Vick is one of the first names that comes to mind. He was involved in dogfighting, which led him to serve 18 months in prison. Just months after his release, he was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles and went on to sign a $100M contract. Regardless of his wrongful actions, Vick continued his NFL career. | Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault on multiple occasions. His actions led him to being suspended for four games because he was found to be in violation of the NFL’s personal conduct policy. Regardless of his wrongful actions, Roethlisberger continues his NFL career. | Colin Kaepernick is not a convicted felon, he has not been accused of any crimes, nor did he commit any acts deeming him worthy of suspension. He peacefully protested by not standing for the national anthem, and he consistently works to achieve social justice for his community. Yet, he still remains unsigned while the Miami Dolphins recently pulled Jay Cutler out of retirement to fill an open roster spot. There are clearly other factors in play aside from athletic ability. Some NFL owners are claiming that they are concerned about the reactions of their fan bases if they were to sign Colin Kaepernick. Let’s assume that this is a legitimate concern. There have been NFL teams who signed convicted felons and athletes accused of committing serious crimes. If owners are more hesitant to sign a social activist than a convicted felon, what does that say about the fan base they are catering to?” – Muslim Female Democrat

“Professional athletes are in large part entertainers – and public desire to tune in is why they’re paid. Most often, if they don’t introduce their views into the game, that means their athletic ability and future prospects drive their earnings potential. Kaepernick’s difficulty isn’t that different than the issue a local businessman has when he runs for local office – not everybody likes it, and some customers walk. Publicly speaking about a controversial topic is generally not a good business idea if that’s his first concern, and if owners believe he hurts their franchise value and their own personal brand image, it will be reflected in his value as a player. I disagree with Kaepernick’s method of protest, because I thought it was disrespectful to veterans. I do respect deeply his right to make his statement as an American with the right of free speech.  But now he’s discovering what many veterans have known for a long time in defending the rights of citizens – that freedom isn’t free.” – Right Army Veteran

“Are NFL owners anti-controversy? Their support of players who have been arrested throughout the league (1 in 40 each year) suggests not. Is Kaepernick truly just not a good enough Quarterback to make a roster? His performance over the last 6 seasons and Super Bowl experience suggest this is not the case. Is the NFL racist? I don’t know for certain, but if so I believe racism is only one part of a larger issue here. “Us vs. Them” is the driving force behind the Kaepernick snub. He’s not doing what the NFL thinks everyone ought to do: fall in line and support the flag, the League, the Country. Consequently, it seems he is being blacklisted (ironic terminology intended). Many White athletes protested the National Anthem in the 60’s over conscription, Vietnam, civil rights, etc. There were cases of school expulsions, verbal abuse, and public ostracization. This demonstrates that when someone protests against the Status Quo – regardless of Race – there will be a backlash. It takes courage to make a stand against something you think is wrong and if you are not in the majority, there will be consequences. For tearing up a picture of the Pope on live television in protest of the Catholic Church’s well-documented history of child abuse scandals and cover-ups, Sinead O’Connor nearly lost her entire music career. If Colin Kaepernick’s intention is to create controversy to draw attention to an issue that he believes in, then this current NFL spurn might be more helpful than harmful to his cause.” – Unaffiliated Humanist Musician

“Let’s be honest. Kaepernick doesn’t have a job right now because owners see him as a liability and distraction.  The issues Kaepernick represents are the very ones they want to ignore – and it probably doesn’t help that New York plans on holding a major rally for him. But let’s be even more honest, if Kaepernick had won a Super Bowl or was a huge star, these issues would probably be overlooked, i.e. Ray Lewis. Kaepernick may not be the same athlete to be considered a starter, but physically he could still be a mentoring 3rd string QB.  If Mark Sanchez still has a job, then whay can’t Kaepernick? Sanchez stays quiet and doesn’t ignite the public – but that doesn’t mean Colin should be quiet on the issues that are most important to him. | What makes Kaepernick different from Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, and the majority of the Cincinnati Bengals? Kaepernick represents a social injustice issue that he is standing up for while the others were individual incidents that one can be apologetic, reprimanded, and or proven/deemed innocent.”  Independent Marketing Pro

“A man of color who stands his ground on an issue that he feels passionate about risks his successful career to stand tall and stick up his middle finger to White America. We want our men to be strong and stand for something; yet, White America wants to dictate what that “something” is. Nothing in his contract dictates that he has to forego his moral beliefs in order to use his talent to make the the NFL millions and millions of dollars. So is White America trying to prove a point by not signing him? How dare them try to tell this grown man what to think and how to feel. Are they just angry because a public figure is taking a public stand against the racist core of America? The truth hurts.  Kaepernick should be applauded for his courage and lack of desire to sell out for a few pennies… Stand tall my Brother.” – Apolitical Elected Official

This article was originally published on 9 August 2017.

Independent Responds to Conservative… Transgenger Ban Revisited

On August 29, 2017, LCR Contributor Right Army Veteran published an article about Trump’s decision to ban transgender service members. He suggested that both administrations (Obama and Trump) dropped the ball regarding the policy implementation and ban. He also mentioned costs as a driving factor for the ban.

“Military service members retire after 20 years and then collect benefits for a lifetime. That’s an expensive investment- especially if 2 years may make them non-deployable for surgery at a minimum, and for years after they continue with guaranteed medical needs and lifetime complications (and sanitary requirements) that may be difficult to ensure in the filthy, harsh business of war in dark places.”– Right Army Veteran

His full article can be viewed here: Transgender in the Military – A Case in Political Hijackings by Democrats and Republicans

I disagree…

This is a farce of epic proportions. Using medical costs as a reason to exclude a person from serving in the military is a coverup for bigotry and hate against a group of people too many are unwilling to fully understand. The medical costs excuse is a smokescreen. If the military really wanted to curb or prevent medical costs they wouldn’t allow our presidents to get us involved in unjust wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing us $1 trillion, that’s with a T, in medical costs. And most veterans from those two wars aren’t even 40 years old yet. If it’s really about costs, then why not completely cut medical benefits after retirement? Find me a profession in the private sector in which merely retiring at any level provides healthcare benefits for you, your spouse, and family, until death. So let’s be honest, it’s probably not about the costs. Becuase if it was then the military wouldn’t spend $41.6 million annually on Viagra alone, which according to the Military Times analysis that figure is five times the estimated spend on transgender transition-related care.

 I could accept a policy of not covering active service members who wanted to have the elective surgery; however, this ban is a universal ban – no matter what, if you identify as transgender you’re not eligible for military service.

 If this ban stays in place, the irony would be noteworthy… We’d be the world’s freest nation, yet not everyone would be free to serve and defend it.

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.